10 November 2009

For Melanie—

Melanie, in your comment on my post below, you’ve touch upon a subject that concerns why I am beginning to have problems about the Bible…its translation. Full Gospel preachers will preach that it is the inherent word of God—that these words were divinely inspired. Yet, to whom were they inspired? Men of a far different cultural time than now. You cited a good example of sexism—women were treated as chattel (“an item of personal property that is not freehold land and is not intangible. Chattels are typically movable property). Women were not viewed as persons in their own right. This model had not changed until the 1920s with the 19th Amendment allowing women the right to vote. Up until then, men did not believe women had the wherewithal to have an opinion, much less speak in public. That is only the situation in the United States. Look at how many cultures (e.g., the Middle East) still actually treat their women as property. Anyway, I digress…

I also agree with your statements about Paul being sexist. Paul espoused the notion that men should stay single and devote their lives to God; however, if they could not remain single (subtle inference on my part here—if men could not do without sex), then be married, but it is much better to remain single (1 Cor 7:1). My interpretation: women were only good for one thing, satisfying men’s sexual urges (one caveat here, Paul also said the same for widows as well, though). Here’s my conundrum. I am a lesbian, therefore an abomination; however, if I choose to remain single (celibate), then it is better (so am I still an abomination?). So that forces me into a life where I will never have any relationships—a pretty sad state of affairs, don’t you think? Our current government has deemed that same-sex marriages are forbidden (under DOMA). If I could be legally married, then I would not be a fornicator, yet the noose around me is that I am still queer, so therefore still an abomination.

If the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, then who is to say that by the time the words were captured on papyrus, the men so divinely inspired did not interpret it as they saw fit according to the times in which those words were inspired. I have already mentioned in my post below how we have since dispensed with certain passages as biblical rule, but to this day, no one will even suggest that homosexuality be dispensed with at the same time because through the ages, religious zealots have seen fit to propagate the belief that homosexuals are perverts (it’s become a strong-held belief, I believe, because people saw this as “different” from their own experiences, therefore immoral). Slavery was supported in the Bible. It is no longer allowed. Interracial marriages were not approved, but only recently have the courts deemed this as racist. No one wants to touch on the hot ticket of the day which has become the litmus test for all politicians, much like abortion was in previous political battles.

Your desire to read the true translations as you study other languages may prove interesting, especially as they may show wide differences across today’s various translations. In some churches, only the old King James version is considered THE Bible. I personally have found that the NIV is more homophobic across the board than others. Good luck with your studies and thank you for taking the time to share with me your thoughts.©2009


  1. no problem and thanks...i still believe it is the word of god myself just spoken through men and 'men' is wherein lies the faults since people build upon their previous knowledge to offer up new info and culturality goes along with that..like if god wants a passage on a topic in sexual immorality the guy writes what he believes is sexual immorality or others at the time..some more open-minded apostles prohpets or the like i have less problems with because im sorry paul was just way too prejudiced for me...my first really good youth minister used to love him cuz his passages helped him through a lot of bad times so he used the passages a lot but he was not prejudiced at all so he took different meanings from the verse which i liked (saying as he wasnt a git himself)...interpretation is one of the main parts about it too and that is why people divide into their different sects(not that thats necessarily bad to have options with other people who might think the same)..that passage from paul about women only good for sexual urges was my interpretation too...lol freudian apostles...the new testament was supposed to be about jesus saying as 4 books that said the exact same thing about his dying i prefer 1 john for a nt book since it follows jesus non-prejudicial behavior to love your fellow man (or woman)...and with his particular view proper christians are to love others so no one would become an abomination just a different horses mouth i guess but i like his plus maybe why he made friends with a git like paul jesus was nice?..i wouldnt say that slavery was necessarily supported in the bible certain might have liked it but in others it might just be put in because its a cultural reference like in the laws of ot they have laws about everything so slavery has to come in the picture...bit annoying how often it is referenced and not outrightly denounced but to become a popular religion like it has and did become it does kinda have to support popular views a little however misguided that is...which maybe why its still religulously viewed as wrong cuz its viewed as culturally wrong because its viewed as religiously wrong bit of a vicious circle especially when it concerns you..guess this is my version of denouncing the vatican proposing cultural things to believe in and becoming entities themselves...culturally i wouldnt even say women were equal now far from it...homosexuality not going to be coming soon or at least definitely lesbianism...

  2. gay men may now be shopping mates or cute and cuddly (still not marriage material) but gay women theres a very prejudicial term that comes to mind you might just know it...i have problems with the bible too but for different reasons (i am crazy and god is nice loving guy why did he make me wanna kill myself quite so often...just a bit of a problem but ill figure mine out in time i still have faith and know i will but for me itll just take a little bit of time maybe 'time is all you need' lol)...as for singledom ive found happy abominations do a little better than sad and alone abominations...have you ever heard of the term 'flex sex' as in flexible sexuality (only got a tiny bit of air time but its like straights who will occasionally date the same sex but in general they really are straight not just denouncing it and proposes that all sexuality is flexible in nature)...i think if our culture could follow that route in beliefs about sexuality its not a black or white right and wrong kinda thing..youve lain with a woman so youre 'bad'...course it only got a tiny bit of air time and was never referenced again but wishful thinking? the thing i dont really understand about homosexuality are those who uphold the cultural belief to keep denouncing homosexuals just met the one the other day i just had to refrain from responding cuz id get all 'hot and bothered' cuz this also reminds me of this one chick who rented north country when it came out and said because she worked in a mill? that she deserved to get raped...i was working at the time so couldnt properly kick her ass plus it completely stunned me cuz she was a woman too and first time that i heard that somebody deserved to get raped...youll see it in feminism but a lot more often in homosexuals or at least outwardly affirming themselves as abominations thru legislations and stuff..women its more subconscious inequality which isnt much better since long standing but whatever...need more books for the learning of the greek hebrew and aramaic stuffs so right now its just a waiting game before i can figure all the bible out..i do not understand how people can think homosexuality is immoral really..course i mean im used to associating with dreggs of society i might reference a coke addict here lol so im a well say a bit open but really its just completely closeminded and annoying to think that way..how many people do you have to denounce until you denounce yourself? bit of rambling for the moment ;)